-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sony advertising RDR2 as "Play it in 4K"
- Thread starter Deleted member 4976
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for setting that straight. I always heard it was Halo 3 as the first game.
Yes, a few of them, but mostly sports/remasters. PLASTICA-MAN made a list, but I don't know if it's up to date:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ps...-the-list-everytime-there-is-a-new-game.3394/
Hyperbole. It shares some of the visual flaws but it still looks good.
I may as well copy & past what I put in the other thread:
Most people have no idea what 4K is outside it being the latest TV marketing term. Games, movies, TV, so many different standards, resolutions, upscaling techniques. It would be impossible just to market 'native' 4K as 4K. It would also be pointless as in my experience the IQ of an image doesn't seem to directly correlate to resolution.
I'd be more concerned with informing consumers not to buy crap 4K TV's with terrible input lag & borked HDR. Then we can tell them not to use 'vivid' picture settings and 'smoothing' filters that destroy image quality.
Both machines offer up a variety of native resolutions, dynamic resolutions, upscaling technique etc. From day one the intention of these mid-gen consoles has been to offer up a better presentation on 4K TV's. Often native 4K isn't the best solution and no one would seriously suggest devs target that at all costs.
Next-gen machines will be able to output native 4K with ease all else being equal. But as gamers we want all components of graphics and performance to be improved. So many devs will doubt look at reconstruction techniques.
Most people have no idea what 4K is outside it being the latest TV marketing term. Games, movies, TV, so many different standards, resolutions, upscaling techniques. It would be impossible just to market 'native' 4K as 4K. It would also be pointless as in my experience the IQ of an image doesn't seem to directly correlate to resolution.
I'd be more concerned with informing consumers not to buy crap 4K TV's with terrible input lag & borked HDR. Then we can tell them not to use 'vivid' picture settings and 'smoothing' filters that destroy image quality.
FIFA, NBA2K, Last of Us, Wipeout etc.
Both machines offer up a variety of native resolutions, dynamic resolutions, upscaling technique etc. From day one the intention of these mid-gen consoles has been to offer up a better presentation on 4K TV's. Often native 4K isn't the best solution and no one would seriously suggest devs target that at all costs.
Next-gen machines will be able to output native 4K with ease all else being equal. But as gamers we want all components of graphics and performance to be improved. So many devs will doubt look at reconstruction techniques.
Last edited:
It does use a reconstruction technique though. I'm not saying the results can't be better but to act like non-reconstructed rendering is a waste is misguided.
User Warned - Ignoring Mod Post with System Warring
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
Kameo was also sub HD.
I do recall hearing something from Condemned, N3 and even Square with FFXI... It was required because 720p with msaa was supposed to be free, but once they added AA the framebuffer size increased and thus they had to tile (cut the screen in parts), and tiling performance could be really ugly on 360 if your engine wouldn't support that, by having to draw all geometry as X times as there were tiles. So since it was impractical for MS to demand that all engines supported 360 specific tiling they dropped the requirement.
No, it isn't a lie. A lie would be saying that it plays in native 4K. The game renders at 1920 x 2160 and then check-boarded to 2160p and then outputted to your TV. The ad is technically correct even though it is misleading to us forum dwellers.
Oh must have missed that note about a reconstruction technique in the DF vid. Agreed though, I'm not saying native is worthless, but just that it's not the last word and gold standard. If the framerate isnt dynamic and outputs the correct number of pixels (reconstructed or not) without an upscale, I think 4K fits as a descriptor.
Uh, my point still stands. Rampage has a 4K Blu-ray release that features an upscale from a 2K matrix, and many older movies that have no available high-resolution sources whatsoever (or the studios releasing them simply don't want to invest the cash necessary to make a remaster from the original, celluloid matrixes) are being released in 4K Blu-rays too. No one is claiming it to be a case of false advertisement either.
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
No, the advert is genuine.
I've seen the advert from the op on TV, it's real.
What you posted has nothing to do with it.
No it literally doesn't. It doesn't show the native Res anywhere on that image whatsoever.
This is a learning opportunity, really. 2160p is any resolution with 2160 pixels of height, not shorthand for native 4K. Heck, "native 4K" has plenty of standards that all feature a vertical image of 2160 pixels.
The problem in RDR2 is as dark1x explained not necessarily the rendering method but the way it interacts with the temporal anti-aliasing. It's the latter that makes it quite soft, "underneath" it has much more detail as can be seen in the first 1-2 frames of a scene before the TAA kicks in.
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
If you have more specific info showing that the ad in the OP isn't real, I'd share that, but showing the back of the bundle box has nothing to do with this particular ad. As far as I know, there have been a range of users who've encountered the ad in the OP personally, so I don't think it's in question at all. ( I haven't seen it in the wild personally, and I had asked if it was real in other discussions because yeah, it seems like pretty bad form)
Sony advertising RDR2 as "Play it in 4K"
"Not one 2160p/4K movie actually outputs at a resolution of 3840x2160, except for maybe the movies filmed with IMAX camera"
You said not one movie outputs at 4K resolution, I tell you it is not true and proceed to say I am uniformed and then show me one of many movies that aren't mastered in a 4K DI. Out of many movies that are shot and mastered with a 4K DI.
What is your point when I am infoming you that there are movies shot and mastered in 4098x2160p?
You said not one movie. I can show you two movies or three or 20.
Garbage and indefensible advertising.
Lemme take this one pixel, scale it up to 2160 times its size (maybe even just a line) and now I'll advertise it as 2160p, too!
Either we're talking about native resolution or all these ads can bugger off. If it's not native then make clear that it's upscaled if you want to mention the resolution output still. But, I mean, that would be against the point of doing false advertising in the first place so it's out of the question...
And if people could stop with the damned checkerboard or other upscale algorithms, that would be very much appreciated. They will always look significantly worse than native unless your algorithm does literal magic. If it's so great, then you wouldn't mind just putting it on the box anyway.
Lemme take this one pixel, scale it up to 2160 times its size (maybe even just a line) and now I'll advertise it as 2160p, too!
Either we're talking about native resolution or all these ads can bugger off. If it's not native then make clear that it's upscaled if you want to mention the resolution output still. But, I mean, that would be against the point of doing false advertising in the first place so it's out of the question...
And if people could stop with the damned checkerboard or other upscale algorithms, that would be very much appreciated. They will always look significantly worse than native unless your algorithm does literal magic. If it's so great, then you wouldn't mind just putting it on the box anyway.
Lmao that's the first time I have ever heard XFanatic.
Damn Era, RDR2 has really shaken this place up over the last 24 hours. Never have I seen so many bans in so many threads.
Edit: Maybe instead of just listing 4k, they should list checkerboard 4K.
Damn Era, RDR2 has really shaken this place up over the last 24 hours. Never have I seen so many bans in so many threads.
Edit: Maybe instead of just listing 4k, they should list checkerboard 4K.
If the ad was coupled with a campaign to explain this to people, sure I could understand that.
Instead, it's just blatantly misleading.
User Warned - Ignoring Mod Post & System Warring
I'm sure OP was OUTRAGED when games ran at 720p / 900p on the OG X1 and it was advertised as 1080p. RDR2 runs better on X1X, that's undisputed. However, this is the Battle of Bautzen of this console generation, the last victory of the losing side. It won't change anything, and people that play the game on their PS4/Pro will enjoy it just as much as people on the 1X.
The issue is, if you don't draw the line at only calling Native 4K by the term 4K (without qualifiers), where do you draw the line?
An Xbox One S will upscale RDR2 to 4K before outputting it to your TV. Does that mean the X1S plays RDR2 in 4K?
Clearly, no. It's not even close. PS4 Pro render resolution is only 50% of 4K/2160p. They shouldn't claim it is 4k/2160p without some qualifier.
An Xbox One S will upscale RDR2 to 4K before outputting it to your TV. Does that mean the X1S plays RDR2 in 4K?
Clearly, no. It's not even close. PS4 Pro render resolution is only 50% of 4K/2160p. They shouldn't claim it is 4k/2160p without some qualifier.
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
Don't do this lmao
Oh well that's good news then, since that can likely be corrected with a patch pretty quickly. Hopefully DF will be able to get a better look at their 4K solution
I mean, they advertise the Pro as a 4K console, despite it being a 1440p machine that can't even play UHD movies, and have done for two years now. A bit silly, yeah, but we know marketing can be slimy and, again, this has been happening long enough that it should no longer be a surprise.
That's the issue I'm interested in - where's the line of acceptability? Would the people saying it's not misleading be ok with MS using "PLAY IN 4K" in huge text with "rendered at 900p" in small print on adverts for games on XB1S?
Smh
You can play 4K movies on a USB drive :P
Yup, patently false info being thrown around in that ad. The defence isn't surprising though.
This kind of shit is problematic for our industry. Don't know about you but I'm hoping for native 4K 60 FPS out of PS5 and Xbox Two. We don't need people thinking checkerboard is 4K or whatever.
Not saying to sacrifice performance for a native 4K resolution but when strictly discussing image quality, it is the golden standard. It's the standard that these reconstruction techniques try to replicate after all. If someone or a company wants to use 4K in a quick advertisement or presentation, I think it's acceptable. However I would prefer that developers or gamers specify whether it's a reconstruction technique or native when discussing a game's resolution. I think it's especially relevant now where we could have one version running 4K CBR and another running native 4K.
Oh, wait, "Not one movie" was referring to how most movies feature letterboxes images that don't actually have the full 4K resolution on their 4K releases. But, yes, the point still stands that most 4K releases of movies on home media do not feature a native 4K resolution. And so far, you haven't really touched on this point.
Putting the marketing angle aside, that's looking more realistic for a lot of titles next time around, considering which games are already hitting 4K on mid-gen hardware, which doesn't even have the benefit of modern CPUs.
I have a 4k tv, bought it when I got my pro. I plan on buying a xb1x very soon. I also own a 4k movie player. I love 4k but I also am blown away how checkerboard works, games like HZD had my jaw on the ground so much. I love this tech we have available to us now. I know its implemented in different ways with varied results, but its all gravy to me. Currently playing RDR2 on a pro and loving it.
Your post is literally the reason why this thread exists.You all joke but you should see how awesome the NES Classic looks in 4K on my 4KTV.
One became a damn meme of the generation, yet another (an actual advert) is apparently "ok".
This forum has become so sensational. Yeah yeah its not in 4K so someone call the international crime court. Smh sometimes yall make me hate video games.
You're okay with a company misleading people so obviously? And the funny part is that they're not misleading the general audience, who sees 4K and that's all they know.
The misleading part is the 2160p, which is telling anyone who knows 4K resolution that this is native 4K.
it's not.
An average gamer will see that BIG PRINT that says 4K and then the 2160p print and will realize it's 4K. It's a cheap marketing method to work around what's real and present it as it is.
I wonder why they did NOT include the 1920 part!!
It's a lie. And a cheap one too.
It looks better than 1440p when well implemented. Look at Sony's first party on Pro.
- Status